MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379802195 · doi:10.1086/722431

“But wisht, that with that shepheard he mote dwelling share”: Spenser with Jacques Rancière

2023· article· en· W4379802195 on OpenAlexaff
Owen Kane

Bibliographic record

VenueSpenser Studies A Renaissance Poetry Annual · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)NormativeContext (archaeology)Style (visual arts)Meaning (existential)Plot (graphics)PoetryPsychologyEpistemologySociologyAestheticsPhilosophyArtLiteratureComputer scienceLinguisticsHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on The Faerie Queene and Aisthesis, this essay brings Spenser and Rancière together to demonstrate a scenographic style they share. The scenographic style starts with an idea and interweaves that idea with the interpretive network that gives it meaning. Both writers engage concepts at work in ways that cannot be appreciated in advance of the context they appear in. Writing in this descriptive style requires attending to dispositions—how things are arranged in relation to other things. Despite their differences on how to best imagine such dispositions, each author overwhelms and refigures any available criteria for forming normative critical judgments by positioning together objects that typically don’t belong alongside each other. I propose Rancière’s word “reverie” for moments in Spenser’s poetry where the plot relaxes in favor of a daydream-like entertaining of new dispositional arrangements. The unlikely alliance of these two authors is itself a scene of missed understanding (“la mésentente”) opening up new forms of belonging.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpenser Studies A Renaissance Poetry AnnualSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207